NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/04gop.html
Alan Keyes is one of the candidates in consideration to run against Barrack Obama. I know there's the issue that Keyes was never an Illinois resident, but keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was never a resident of New York.

Bump

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/04gop.html
Alan Keyes is one of the candidates in consideration to run against Barrack Obama. I know there's the issue that Keyes was never an Illinois resident, but keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was never a resident of New York.

Actually, Keyes was very vocal about this with Clinton. Crossfire discussed that issue today and dragged up a quote by him denegrating Hillary for entering the New York race and stating that he would never do such a thing. So if he DOES run, that quote will be used against him in the "hypocrite" category - which I think is unfair about him in general from what I have heard, but goes to show how words can come back and bite you.

Allan Keyes is awesome!!

Actually, Keyes was very vocal about this with Clinton. Crossfire discussed that issue today and dragged up a quote by him denegrating Hillary for entering the New York race and stating that he would never do such a thing. So if he DOES run, that quote will be used against him in the "hypocrite" category - which I think is unfair about him in general from what I have heard, but goes to show how words can come back and bite you.
The article actually mentions this. However, what I was thinking more of was the fact that Keyes is black. It'll certainly steal some of the black votes that Democrats have relied on for so long. Not only that, but both candidates have made a reputation in politics.

The article actually mentions this. However, what I was thinking more of was the fact that Keyes is black. It'll certainly steal some of the black votes that Democrats have relied on for so long. Not only that, but both candidates have made a reputation in politics.

Well, blacks still generally lean towards the Democrats - so I don't know that this will have a huge effect, and Keyes is pretty extreme in some of his views which will not appeal to moderates. And I don't know how a parachuted in person will play in this state as opposed to New York which is the East coast hub of the cult of celebrity - which Keyes is not to the same extent Hillary was.

But both of these men are great orators - so the debates would be lively indeed!

So what if he is black.

Ever read his comments about Moore?

The Feds are overstepping their bounds and he was right to do what he did.

I always raise an eyebrow when people make analogies of Nazis taking over the US and start tossing people in camps and the states have the right to resist such orders.

edit----
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34270
edit----

He is a clown.

Bring on Obama.
----edit

Oh yea and very against abortion. Basically supporting abortion takes away Constitutional liberties.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29539

Barrack Obama is in like sin, no one can stop him from winning his seat.. although I will admit, it would be interesting to watch some one on the GOP side go up in flames trying..lol

Well, blacks still generally lean towards the Democrats - so I don't know that this will have a huge effect, and Keyes is pretty extreme in some of his views which will not appeal to moderates. And I don't know how a parachuted in person will play in this state as opposed to New York which is the East coast hub of the cult of celebrity - which Keyes is not to the same extent Hillary was.

But both of these men are great orators - so the debates would be lively indeed!
She was actually not that popular up here until she decided to run. Don't know why it was New York, of all states. It's probably because of our diverse economy, offering quite a bit for Clinton to talk about. And talking is her expertise. Doing, on the other hand, is a deficiency of her's:).

She was actually not that popular up here until she decided to run. Don't know why it was New York, of all states. It's probably because of our diverse economy, offering quite a bit for Clinton to talk about. And talking is her expertise. Doing, on the other hand, is a deficiency of her's:).

Yeah, those Clinton's....they talk a good utopia, but they don't deliver...LOL

Yeah, those Clinton's....they talk a good utopia, but they don't deliver...LOL

Maybe they were blinded by the thousand points of light! ;)

Maybe they were blinded by the thousand points of light! ;)

Good one...LOL Of course it could have been put into a lock-box somewhere...LOL

Clinton did pretty darn well, considering the Republicans in Congress were doing nothing but try and get dirt on him since even before he *got* some head.

Frankly, during the Clinton administration, I got off the street and despite chronic illness found a way to get myself working, despite a lot of disadvantages. A Republican congress basically cut my safety net, though, and the first time the arthritis flared up, that was basically it.

It wasn't Utopia, but it was pretty damn good. The numbers on this don't lie.

Yeah, those Clinton's....they talk a good utopia, but they don't deliver...LOL
As far as I'm concerned, though, Hillary's the main problem when it comes to me. I live in New York, and she is not the person who delivers. Schumer does, but he's always outshined by the woman with a famous name.

Keyes is a chump. The only thing he's got going for him, even from the Republican point of view, is that he has just enough name recognition that the Illinois Republican party won't have to pour huge dollars into the race just so he can lose badly. There are notable Republicans in Illinois--none of them want to take on Obama because they know they'll lose and lose big.

Keyes is a chump. The only thing he's got going for him, even from the Republican point of view, is that he has just enough name recognition that the Illinois Republican party won't have to pour huge dollars into the race just so he can lose badly. There are notable Republicans in Illinois--none of them want to take on Obama because they know they'll lose and lose big.
How nice. You have the same opinion for all Republicans. Are you putting on your election year mask? I have.

i think the true test will be whether obama is willing to jump into a reunited rage against the machine's mosh pit.

i think the true test will be whether obama is willing to jump into a reunited rage against the machine's mosh pit.
Let me guess, you're making an illusion to populism. It used to be a favorite weapon of the Democrats. But it was thrown out at their convention. They've decided to run on a campaign that won't be built around the "us vs. them" idea, like they usually do.

Well, it's official. Alan Keyes will run. Whoever wins will be the 5th black senator in US history.

Keyes will be able to add this race to his resume of growing political losses.

Keyes will be able to add this race to his resume of growing political losses.
I think this will be a nice, spirited race, and for his misfortune, Keyes should be able to establish a base very quickly.

What base is that? Keyes was never able to mount a serious challenge in his presidential campaign. He's smart and uses too many words when he speaks, turning off most voters. He's never polled well with Republican voters and even fared poorly with minority voters when he ran. He might garner the far conservative base and a portion of the business community but his message isn't heard by moderates and anyone on the left. The votes he'll win were votes Obama wasn't going to get in the first place.

i like alan keyes. sure he is a black republican. good for him. we need more of that in america. independent thought. i would love to see him in the senate. but not this time. he isnt from the state this opening is in. he would be following hillary's footsteps into my native newy york, i resented that.

i like alan keyes. sure he is a black republican. good for him. we need more of that in america. independent thought. i would love to see him in the senate. but not this time. he isnt from the state this opening is in. he would be following hillary's footsteps into my native new york, i resented that.

Hey, you guys can't about Alan like that.
He could easily kick Barak's ass. Though, unless there's been a change, the party won't support him.
Some KKK people vandalized his car at the 2000 CRP convention. That sucked.

The article actually mentions this. However, what I was thinking more of was the fact that Keyes is black. It'll certainly steal some of the black votes that Democrats have relied on for so long. Not only that, but both candidates have made a reputation in politics.
But he doesn't run on race. That's not his character.

Well, blacks still generally lean towards the Democrats - so I don't know that this will have a huge effect, and Keyes is pretty extreme in some of his views which will not appeal to moderates. And I don't know how a parachuted in person will play in this state as opposed to New York which is the East coast hub of the cult of celebrity - which Keyes is not to the same extent Hillary was.

But both of these men are great orators - so the debates would be lively indeed!
That's a racial stereotype that is propagated by society. That real fact is that most blacks, like most other ethnic groups, simply don't vote.
And the ones that vote democrat tend be blind to the fact that the dems use them but don't give them anything in return.
Where was the democratic party when the blacks needed them the last couple of years? Out to lunch.

Let me guess, you're making an illusion to populism.

nah, just making reference to the fact that keyes got michael moore's endorsement in the 2000 presidential election because he was the only candidate to take up moore's offer of a mosh-endorsement exchange.
http://www.musicfanclubs.org/rage/articles/michaelmoore.htm

That isn't a racial stereotype propogated by society, its a fact of life that is reaffirmed every election cycle.

Blacks vote Dem by a margin of at least 5:1, usually more like 8:1.

As the primary victims of 40 years of liberal social engineering, you'd think more of them would have opened their eyes by now.

How nice. You have the same opinion for all Republicans. Are you putting on your election year mask? I have.Ah Purly--seeing only what you wish to see. I've said before on numerous occasions that there are a number of Republicans that I respect and would even consider voting for. John McCain, for example. Chuck Hagel perhaps. Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, and George Voinevich almost certainly.

But Alan Keyes? He's not even in their league. He is--I repeat--a chump, and as others in this very thread have already noted, a hypocrite for even considering a run in a state where he is not a citizen. And let's not even get into the hypocrisy of his taking the place of a person who won the primary election after the deadline has passed after what he said about Frank Lautenberg's replacement of Robert Torricelli in New Jersey.

So no--I do not have the same opinion for all Republicans. I am of the opinion that the people who claim the loudest to be conservatives today are not--they are radicals and corporate whores and they do the conservative movement a disservice by usurping the name of good and honest people, and I'll tell you something--I hope the Republican party takes it on the chin in this election and does what it needs to do to regain its soul and rid itself of the christian right's dominance of the party.

As the primary victims of 40 years of liberal social engineering, you'd think more of them would have opened their eyes by now.

well, the modern incarnation of the other party created itself by getting southerners to break up the new deal coalition in favor of hating black people. so really, what choice do they have?

well, the modern incarnation of the other party created itself by getting southerners to break up the new deal coalition in favor of hating black people. so really, what choice do they have?
The Republican Party is not based on racism. That is one of the most ignorant things anyone has ever said in this forum.

The Republican Party is not based on racism. That is one of the most ignorant things anyone has ever said in this forum.

it all comes down to 'states rights' actually. 'states rights' in the 60s, like most other times its talked about, was a barely concealed code word for being a racist fscktard. the democratic party of the time was still operating under the unstoppable new deal coalition, but the civil rights movement forced open a divide between northern progressives and southern racist fscktards...i mean 'states rights' proponents. that divide being that the northern progressives didn't hate black people and want to stop them from voting and going to school (a good number of them were blacks after all), while 'states rights' proponents said it should be up to the states whether or not it was right to hate minorities and keep them out of 'our' schools. the modern republican party created itself through taking advantage of this divide by starting to go on about 'states rights'. its called the southern strategy.

The Republican Party is not based on racism. That is one of the most ignorant things anyone has ever said in this forum.
The party isn't as a whole, but a large part of their electoral strategy since 1968 has been based on appealing to racist southern whites and getting them to vote against their economic self-interest. Inn recent years, it's gotten even more blatant, with Mississippi governor Haley Barbour getting help from the CCC and other racist groups. It's yet another reason the Republican party needs to do some soul-searching in the very near future.

The Republican Party is not based on racism. That is one of the most ignorant things anyone has ever said in this forum.

REALLY?

Guess Strom Thurmand did was a lie?

Ever hear of the dixiecrats?

That's a racial stereotype that is propagated by society. That real fact is that most blacks, like most other ethnic groups, simply don't vote.
And the ones that vote democrat tend be blind to the fact that the dems use them but don't give them anything in return.
Where was the democratic party when the blacks needed them the last couple of years? Out to lunch.

Wow - I simply use a factual statistic, but your response pretty much states that the average black is too stupid to realize that they are getting "used"?

And you accuse ME of using racial steriotypes?

That's rich!

Incidentally - where was the Republican party when - as you put it - blacks needed them the last couple of years? I mean - they ARE the ones currently with the power to help aren't they?

REALLY?

Guess Strom Thurmand did was a lie?

Ever hear of the dixiecrats?

And I guess the Dems get a pass on Senator Byrd of West Virginia? He's a 'D' and former member of the KKK. But that's OK because he's a 'D'. And Strom Thurmand (about time that guy died and I'm an 'R') makes the Republican party racist? Please.

Barrack Obama is in like sin, no one can stop him from winning his seat.. although I will admit, it would be interesting to watch some one on the GOP side go up in flames trying..lol
Only because Orion Samuelson decided not to run. If he had, it would have been like the 98 Mosley-Braun / Fitzgerald race. Samuelson probably would have taken all of downstate (being well known down there and from a farming background), and Obama would like have sewn up Chicago and some collar communities. It would have come down to who did a better job of getting out the vote, and been a good old fashioned downstate vs. Chicago election.

Ah well.

Incidentally - where was the Republican party when - as you put it - blacks needed them the last couple of years? I mean - they ARE the ones currently with the power to help aren't they?
Being filibustered?

Well, it's official. Alan Keyes will run. Whoever wins will be the 5th black senator in US history.
Is that all?? The 5th? Out off how many?

That's a racial stereotype that is propagated by society. That real fact is that most blacks, like most other ethnic groups, simply don't vote.
And the ones that vote democrat tend be blind to the fact that the dems use them but don't give them anything in return.
Where was the democratic party when the blacks needed them the last couple of years? Out to lunch.
As opposed to the Republican party who were doing truely great things for minorities?

Being filibustered?
You can find democrats to filibuster on legislation that helps black and minority people?

The Republican Party is not based on racism. That is one of the most ignorant things anyone has ever said in this forum.
The GOP used to be about fiscal discipline and states rights... now their biggest policy is tax breaks for millionaires.

The GOP used to be about fiscal discipline and states rights... now their biggest policy is tax breaks for millionaires.

:D So true...

Is that all?? The 5th? Out off how many?

1,875.

you want to know what's even sadder? we're only going to be on the 3rd since the end of reconstruction. and one of them only served for one year - hiram revel finished out jefferson davis' term once mississippi was allowed representation again.

it all comes down to 'states rights' actually. 'states rights' in the 60s, like most other times its talked about, was a barely concealed code word for being a racist fscktard. the democratic party of the time was still operating under the unstoppable new deal coalition, but the civil rights movement forced open a divide between northern progressives and southern racist fscktards...i mean 'states rights' proponents. that divide being that the northern progressives didn't hate black people and want to stop them from voting and going to school (a good number of them were blacks after all), while 'states rights' proponents said it should be up to the states whether or not it was right to hate minorities and keep them out of 'our' schools. the modern republican party created itself through taking advantage of this divide by starting to go on about 'states rights'. its called the southern strategy.You do realize that states' rights is written into the constitution. The states can whatever they like as long as they abide by the same restrictions as the federal government as outlined in the 14th amendment.

The party isn't as a whole, but a large part of their electoral strategy since 1968 has been based on appealing to racist southern whites and getting them to vote against their economic self-interest. Inn recent years, it's gotten even more blatant, with Mississippi governor Haley Barbour getting help from the CCC and other racist groups. It's yet another reason the Republican party needs to do some soul-searching in the very near future.
You're talking about only 10% of the party.
The democrats have the same kind of people.
This isn't the republican party of 1968.

And I guess the Dems get a pass on Senator Byrd of West Virginia? He's a 'D' and former member of the KKK. But that's OK because he's a 'D'. And Strom Thurmand (about time that guy died and I'm an 'R') makes the Republican party racist? Please.
David Duke was a grand dragon of the KKK and a member of the Democratic Party.

Wow - I simply use a factual statistic, but your response pretty much states that the average black is too stupid to realize that they are getting "used"?

And you accuse ME of using racial steriotypes?

That's rich!

Incidentally - where was the Republican party when - as you put it - blacks needed them the last couple of years? I mean - they ARE the ones currently with the power to help aren't they?
combating democrat filibusters. The democrats promise the minorities stuff, they never followed through. When the republicans keep the promises that the dems made to minorities, the dems try to kill it through filibuster.
Main difference between dems and reps:
Dems talk the talk but they don't walk the walk
Reps, suck at the talk but they walk the walk.

David Duke was a grand dragon of the KKK and a member of the Democratic Party.

Try Republican.

David Duke to run for Congress

Tampa, Dec. 19 '98, by Don Black, Stormfront NEWS -- David Duke announced today he'll be running for the Congressional seat to be vacated by Bob Livingston. In Tampa, Florida to promote his book, My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, Duke declared, `We need at least one member of Congress who dares to stand up for the rights and the heritage of European Americans.''

Duke, though repudiated by Republican leaders, is chairman of the Republican Party in St. Tammany Parish, the only majority GOP county in Louisiana. Duke twice carried this district in state-wide elections for U.S. Senate and Governor in '90 and '91.

Former House Speaker-elect Livingston shocked the political Establishment earlier today when he announced his resignation from Congress in six months, urging Bill Clinton to follow his lead and do "the honorable thing." Livingston's action followed a Hustler magazine investigation of his previous extra-marital affairs.

Last year, Livingston had indicated he didn't want to seek reelection because he needed to make more money in the private sector. Concern by the Establishment that this might lead to a Duke win caused him to change his mind, in a deal which presumably included "solving" his financial problems

combating democrat filibusters. The democrats promise the minorities stuff, they never followed through. When the republicans keep the promises that the dems made to minorities, the dems try to kill it through filibuster.
Main difference between dems and reps:
Dems talk the talk but they don't walk the walk
Reps, suck at the talk but they walk the walk.

Oh ok. Never mind the fact they tended to be Arch-Conservative and comepletely against abortion and most likely will inject Religion into their decession making so they should get the job because they are a minority?

:rolleyes:

combating democrat filibusters. The democrats promise the minorities stuff, they never followed through. When the republicans keep the promises that the dems made to minorities, the dems try to kill it through filibuster.
Main difference between dems and reps:
Dems talk the talk but they don't walk the walk
Reps, suck at the talk but they walk the walk.

lol. I gather you assume I'm a Democrat? Guess again.

And I guess you call the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the right to organize "just talk?" Or should I rather point to the latest changes to the laws by the Republicans restricting Cuban American's from visitng their families or bringing them so much as a toothbrush to help them out in their poverty?

Exactly which major piece of legislation helping minorities has the Republicans done?

C'mon - show me how they "walk the walk" for the minorities of America.

And this still doesn't excuse your original statment that pretty much implied that all blacks only voted Democrat because they were too stupid to realize that they were being "used".

All Keyes is a scape goat for the republicans. There is no way he will win in a million years. Plus Obama will be the next President after Kerry's two terms.

David Duke was a grand dragon of the KKK and a member of the Democratic Party.
Bullshit--David Duke was a Republican. I know firsthand because I lived in the last district he tried to run for office from--the 1st Congressional district of Louisiana. Thankfully, he lost in the primary, coming in a dismal fourth place, but he was a Republican. Hell, when he ran for President in 1992, he made Pat Buchanan look reasonable.

You do realize that states' rights is written into the constitution. The states can whatever they like as long as they abide by the same restrictions as the federal government as outlined in the 14th amendment.

ah, yes. so just what was all that noise about 'states rights' in the 60 really about if not blatant bigotry? 'states rights' is almost always code for oppressing some unpopular minority. except in the context of education, where it is about oppressing an unpopular reality. its not my fault that whacked out southerners use 'states rights' in this sense, nor is it my fault that the modern republican party formed itself by explicitly appealing to 'states rights' in all its racist glory. thems just the facts.

ah, yes. so just what was all that noise about 'states rights' in the 60 really about if not blatant bigotry? 'states rights' is almost always code for oppressing some unpopular minority. except in the context of education, where it is about oppressing an unpopular reality. its not my fault that whacked out southerners use 'states rights' in this sense, nor is it my fault that the modern republican party formed itself by explicitly appealing to 'states rights' in all its racist glory. thems just the facts.
I'm sure your thinking would change if the rascists were the majority in this country, and those tolerant of one another occupied only a few states.

ah, yes. so just what was all that noise about 'states rights' in the 60 really about if not blatant bigotry? 'states rights' is almost always code for oppressing some unpopular minority. except in the context of education, where it is about oppressing an unpopular reality. its not my fault that whacked out southerners use 'states rights' in this sense, nor is it my fault that the modern republican party formed itself by explicitly appealing to 'states rights' in all its racist glory. thems just the facts.
This is the 21st century, not the 1960's.
The world and indeed, the republican party is a lot different now.
Barry Goldwater don't run this show.
The reason for state's rights is to prevent the federal government from becoming an oppressive, majority run dictatorship.
Hence, America is founded on the concept of local control of most issues, not federal or majority control.
It has nothing to do with promoting racism.
You need to go back check your "facts".

I'm sure your thinking would change if the rascists were the majority in this country, and those tolerant of one another occupied only a few states.
tis true of the majority of the human race, they value free speech and local autonomy only when they agree with what is being said or what laws local govts. are passing.

tis true of the majority of the human race, they value free speech and local autonomy only when they agree with what is being said or what laws local govts. are passing.
Yes, ecacly. In fact, it was a good thing that the Bill of Rights wasn't voted on by plebiscite. Otherwise, this nation would've fallen apart.

This is the 21st century, not the 1960's.
The world and indeed, the republican party is a lot different now.
Barry Goldwater don't run this show.
The reason for state's rights is to prevent the federal government from becoming an oppressive, majority run dictatorship.
Hence, America is founded on the concept of local control of most issues, not federal or majority control.
It has nothing to do with promoting racism.
You need to go back check your "facts".Are you kidding? Reagan was Goldwater's political godchild, and Bush tries so hard to link himself to Reagan that he's likely to start dyeing his hair black and saying "There you go again."

And most people here aren't saying that the Republican party isbased on racism--just that they exploit it for political gain in certain regions of the country, namely, the redneck south (where I was born and raised, so I know whereof I speak).

Barrack Obama is in like sin, no one can stop him from winning his seat.. although I will admit, it would be interesting to watch some one on the GOP side go up in flames trying..lol

I'll say it again. No one is going to beat Obama!

lol. I gather you assume I'm a Democrat? Guess again.

And I guess you call the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the right to organize "just talk?" Or should I rather point to the latest changes to the laws by the Republicans restricting Cuban American's from visitng their families or bringing them so much as a toothbrush to help them out in their poverty?

Exactly which major piece of legislation helping minorities has the Republicans done?

C'mon - show me how they "walk the walk" for the minorities of America.

And this still doesn't excuse your original statment that pretty much implied that all blacks only voted Democrat because they were too stupid to realize that they were being "used".

I had assumed you were canadian and hence didn't vote in US elections. My fault. Don't remember why I thought that.
It was Bill Clinton and democrat controlled Congress in the early 90's that restricted cubans from visiting their families. The reason not being one of race but political bias as cubans almost always vote for the republicans.
Republicans pass healthcare reform and gave prescription drug coverage to seniors. These are two things that dems campaigned on for the last 15 years but refuse to do anything on. The republicans acted and fulfilled promises made by the dems and now the dems are screaming.
Last year, President Bush proposed amnesty for immigrants from Mexico who have been in the US for awhile. Again this is a dem issue that they have campaigned on for many years but refused to act on. Bush tried to fulfill it.
(Twas shot down by congress when the dems got with hardline republicans to kill it.)
The democrats have promised year after year to help education. They failed cause they didn't really care about education, for them it was only a good propaganda tool to get more votes. When Bush came into office, he at least tried to do something to help them. There may be some problems with No Child Left Behind but its better than lip service with no action that dems have giving for years.
The Dems claim women have the absolute right to kill a child any where anytime. Bush, signed into law the ban on partial birth abortion, which I point out, has not been stricken down.
When Arnold asked for help for California, Bush gave it.
When Europe illegally imposed steel tariffs to harm to the US economy, Bush fired back with his own sanctions against Europe. (They were both lifted last year after negotiations.)

Yes, ecacly. In fact, it was a good thing that the Bill of Rights wasn't voted on by plebiscite. Otherwise, this nation would've fallen apart.
In truth of the matter, they didn't have this thing called direct democracy back then. So the bill of rights was ratified only by white male land owners.
Suffrage was later extended all white males, then blacks, then women. The last to be given the right to vote, if I am correct were native americans (through an act of Congress).

Are you kidding? Reagan was Goldwater's political godchild, and Bush tries so hard to link himself to Reagan that he's likely to start dyeing his hair black and saying "There you go again."

And most people here aren't saying that the Republican party isbased on racism--just that they exploit it for political gain in certain regions of the country, namely, the redneck south (where I was born and raised, so I know whereof I speak).
So do the democrats. I'm from California and the Democrats use race to divide people there all the time.

In truth of the matter, they didn't have this thing called direct democracy back then. So the bill of rights was ratified only by white male land owners.
Suffrage was later extended all white males, then blacks, then women. The last to be given the right to vote, if I am correct were native americans (through an act of Congress).
I'm not arguing against suffrage. But I read a book by Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. It made a convincing case in saying that, in many developing countries, liberty and wealth need to be established before democracy. I think it's fair to say that America was a third world nation in 1787, and by and large, the people here knew shit on how to run a nation. Things have changed, and more suffrage can be allowed. That's a good thing. If the same level of suffrage existed in 1787, we'd be a British colony again.

Something Bush did for Blacks:

Advisors for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Executive Order
President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to advance the development of the Nation's full human potential and to advance equal opportunity in higher education, to strengthen the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to provide the highest quality education, and to increase opportunities for these institutions to participate in and benefit from Federal programs, as do other colleges and universities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. There is established, in the Office of the Secretary of Education, a Presidential advisory committee entitled the "President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities" (Board). The Board shall prepare and issue an annual report to the President on the results of the participation of historically black colleges and universities in Federal programs. The Board also shall provide advice to the President and to the Secretary of Education (Secretary) regarding the needs of historically black colleges and universities in the areas of infrastructure, academic programs, and faculty and institutional development. In the annual report to the President, the Board shall make recommendations on how to increase the private sector role, including the role of private foundations, in strengthening historically black colleges and universities. Particular emphasis should also be given in the report to enhancing institutional planning and development, strengthening fiscal stability and financial management, and improving institutional infrastructure, including the use of technology, to ensure the long-term viability and enhancement of these institutions.

Sec. 2. The Board shall be appointed by the President. The Board membership shall include sitting presidents of historically black colleges and universities, representatives of other higher education institutions, business and financial leaders, representatives of private foundations, and secondary school administrators. The President shall designate a Chair or Co-Chairs from among the members.

Sec. 3. The White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (Initiative), located in the Office of the Secretary of Education, shall: (1) provide staff, resources, and assistance to the Board; (2) assist the Secretary in performing the liaison function between the executive branch and historically black colleges and universities; and (3) serve the Secretary in carrying out the responsibilities described in section 6 of this order.

Sec. 4. To carry out this order, each executive department and agency identified by the Secretary may, consistent with applicable law and regulations, enter into appropriate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with historically black colleges and universities. The head of each department or agency so identified shall establish an annual plan that will establish clear goals for how the department or agency intends to increase the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to compete effectively for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements and to encourage historically black colleges and universities to participate in Federal programs. The department's or agency's annual goal should be clearly reflected in the department's or agency's annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget. To facilitate the attainment of these goals, the head of each department or agency identified by the Secretary shall provide, as appropriate, technical assistance and information to historically black colleges and universities regarding the program activities of the department or agency and the preparation of applications or proposals for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.

Sec. 5. Each executive department and agency identified by the Secretary shall appoint a senior official, who is a full-time officer of the Federal Government, to report directly to the department or agency head with respect to department or agency activity under this order, and to serve as liaison to the Board and to the Initiative. To the extent permitted by law and regulations, each executive department and agency identified by the Secretary shall provide appropriate information requested by the Board and staff pursuant to the order.

Sec. 6. Each executive department and agency identified by the Secretary shall develop an annual plan for, and shall document the agency's effort in, increasing the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to participate in Federal programs. Each department's and agency's plan shall describe new or existing department and agency programs and measurable objectives for proposed department and agency actions, in connection with those programs, to achieve the purposes of this order. These plans shall be submitted at such time and in such form as the Secretary shall require. In consultation with the participating departments and agencies, the Secretary shall review the plans and develop, with the advice of the Board, an integrated Annual Federal Plan for Assistance to Historically Black Colleges and Universities for submission to the President. The Secretary shall provide the president of each historically black college and university with a copy of, and an opportunity to comment on, the proposed Annual Federal Plan prior to its submission to the President. Each participating department and agency shall submit to the Secretary an Annual Performance Report that shall measure each department's and agency's performance against the objectives set forth in the department's or agency's annual plan. The Secretary shall be responsible for monitoring compliance with the Annual Federal Plan after it is approved by the President.

Sec. 7. In developing its annual plan, each executive department and agency identified by the Secretary shall emphasize programs and activities that develop the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to contribute to the development of human capital and to strengthen America's economic and technological base through: (1) infrastructure development and acquisitions for instruction and research; (2) student and faculty doctoral fellowships and faculty development; (3) domestic and international faculty and student exchanges and study-abroad opportunities; (4) undergraduate and graduate student internships; and (5) summer, part-time, and permanent employment opportunities.

Sec. 8. Each year, the Board shall report to the President on the progress achieved in enhancing the capacity of historically black colleges and universities to serve their students, including findings and recommendations for individual departments and agencies in connection with their Annual Performance Reports, as described in section 6 of this order.

Sec. 9. The Board, in consultation with the Department of Education and other executive departments and agencies, shall develop a Private Sector Strategy to assist historically black colleges and universities in: (1) increasing voluntary private-sector contributions to support the enhancement of endowments and the overall financial stability of such institutions; (2) improving and enhancing the quality and number of private-sector partnerships focused on academic program development, student achievement and faculty development, cooperative research and development projects, and faculty exchanges; and (3) improving information management, and facilities, and strengthening academic course offerings.

Sec. 10. (a) The provisions in this Executive Order shall be implemented to the fullest extent permitted by law.

(b) The Department of Education shall provide funding and administrative support for the Board and the Initiative.

(c) Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for all travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law;

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, may apply to the Board, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those in section 6 of that Act, shall be performed by the Department of Education, in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.

Sec. 11. Executive Order 12876 of November 1, 1993, as amended, is hereby revoked.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 12, 2002.

I'm not arguing against suffrage. But I read a book by Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. It made a convincing case in saying that, in many developing countries, liberty and wealth need to be established before democracy. I think it's fair to say that America was a third world nation in 1787, and by and large, the people here knew shit on how to run a nation. Things have changed, and more suffrage can be allowed. That's a good thing. If the same level of suffrage existed in 1787, we'd be a British colony again.
The founders of America themselves stated clearly that not everyone is fit to participate in democracy. I believe people should have to take tests before they can vote. Then we wouldn't have all these morons getting elected.
Ever since they ban testing requirements, we've had nothing but shitbags in Congress and presidential elections are nothing but popularity contests.

So he signed an executive order that, on first read, seems to argue for privatization of the historically black college system. What effects has this Executive Order had, Whittier? Have they been good or bad for the system? Has anything even been done about it? How does the college system feel about it? Provide some context, man.

So he signed an executive order that, on first read, seems to argue for privatization of the historically black college system. What effects has this Executive Order had, Whittier? Have they been good or bad for the system? Has anything even been done about it? How does the college system feel about it? Provide some context, man.
Privatization is always good.

Privatization is always good.
Good for who? Not always good for those who get to feel the effects of the privatization. And your MKULTRA-esque one-liners don't win arguments around here, Whittier.

I had assumed you were canadian and hence didn't vote in US elections. My fault. Don't remember why I thought that.

It was Bill Clinton and democrat controlled Congress in the early 90's that restricted cubans from visiting their families. The reason not being one of race but political bias as cubans almost always vote for the republicans.


You were correct about my nationality. Still, why did you skip the point that President Bush just cut visitation home to once every three years for Cubans, and also removed their ability to send (or bring) any care packages that have been allowed up to now?

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aBRJVhu4oR84&refer=latin_america



Republicans pass healthcare reform and gave prescription drug coverage to seniors. These are two things that dems campaigned on for the last 15 years but refuse to do anything on. The republicans acted and fulfilled promises made by the dems and now the dems are screaming.


Oh, you mean the flawed plan that has been panned by most seniors groups as being tilted to benefit the drug companies more than them? Or are you complaining about efforts under Clinton that the Republicans managed to kill?

and what does this have to do with minorities?

Last year, President Bush proposed amnesty for immigrants from Mexico who have been in the US for awhile. Again this is a dem issue that they have campaigned on for many years but refused to act on. Bush tried to fulfill it.
(Twas shot down by congress when the dems got with hardline republicans to kill it.)


the fact that many republicans also did not support the bill as it ws worded might have more to do with the specifics than the idea in general no?

The democrats have promised year after year to help education. They failed cause they didn't really care about education, for them it was only a good propaganda tool to get more votes. When Bush came into office, he at least tried to do something to help them. There may be some problems with No Child Left Behind but its better than lip service with no action that dems have giving for years.


Frankly, I haven;t followed the US education votes as well as I should - so no comment. However blanket statement that people "don't care" is BS and you know it. and what does this have to do with minorities?

The Dems claim women have the absolute right to kill a child any where anytime.


Bull. I respect your stand on abortion, but there have ALWAYS been restrictions. and what does this have to do with minorities?

When Arnold asked for help for California, Bush gave it.

And what? It's Clinton's fault that Arnold didn;t become governer earlier? Or is it his fault that Enron etc was scamming California during his term? What is the point of this statement.
You're right. It happened. So... what does that have to do with our conversation on minority issues?

When Europe illegally imposed steel tariffs to harm to the US economy, Bush fired back with his own sanctions against Europe. (They were both lifted last year after negotiations.)

Actually, I seem to recal that the US sanctions were deemed illegal by the WTO.... and again I fail to see the point of this in the context of our subject.


But nice Presidential finding. I'm not sure what a huge boon to minorities in general it is, but you DID find one specific item. However an Executive Order is not neccessarily indicitive of the position of the party as a whole regarding minority issues either. If the party was behind it, it would have gone through Congress not imposed by fiat.

Obama's going to win, no doubt about it. Keyes would be a fool to run, as anyone the Republicans put up against him at this late date is just a sacrificial lamb. I say let Obama be the Senator from Chicago. Notice I didn't say Illinois. Because Chicago will elect him, not the entire state. The rest of the state will just have to make do with the representation of only one Senator for the next couple years.

I'm sure your thinking would change if the rascists were the majority in this country, and those tolerant of one another occupied only a few states.

oh, i'm all in favor of local decision making for most issues - far more than any republican really. its just that anyone talking 'states rights' isn't talking about getting everybody affected by an issue together to discuss it and come to a sensible solution. 'states rights' pretty much always means protecting the status quo especially if it means violating the actual rights of some group.

states don't have rights - individuals do.

Obama's going to win, no doubt about it. Keyes would be a fool to run, as anyone the Republicans put up against him at this late date is just a sacrificial lamb. I say let Obama be the Senator from Chicago. Notice I didn't say Illinois. Because Chicago will elect him, not the entire state. The rest of the state will just have to make do with the representation of only one Senator for the next couple years.

bah. he'll get overwhelming support in the other urban-ish areas and probably at least 40 - 45% in the rural ones. as good as anyone gets in first past the post elections.

GOP platform:

The EPA has released important new information about the unprecedented health and environmental benefits of the Clear Skies initiative that President Bush proposed in February. The President will work with Congress to strengthen the Clean Air Act through the passage of Clear Skies so we can improve air quality for all Americans.

* Clear Skies will clean our skies, bring greater health to our citizens, and encourage environmentally responsible development in America and around the world.
* The Clear Skies initiative will reduce air pollution from power plants by 70 percent while using a market-based system to keep electricity prices affordable for hardworking Americans. .
o Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants -- nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.
o The most significant step America has ever taken to address this problem.
* Clear Skies will bring Americans much cleaner air, and healthier forests, lakes, and estuaries.
* Many cities and towns will meet air quality standards for the first time in years.
* The problem of acid rain will be virtually eliminated, which affects many lakes and forests in the Northeast.
* Urban smog will be dramatically reduced and nitrogen and mercury deposition.
o Protects Americans from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
* Commits America to an aggressive strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years.
* The initiative also supports vital climate change research and ensures that America's workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized.
* The President's budget in FY 2003 provides $4.5 billion for global climate change-related activities -- a $700 million increase. This includes the first year of funding for a five-year, $4.6 billion commitment to tax credits for renewable energy sources.


President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 48% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001. It includes an additional:

· $1 billion in Title I funding for disadvantaged students, for a total that represents a 52% increase since FY 2001.

· $138 million for reading programs, for a total that is over four times the amount spent in FY 2001.

· $1 billion for special education programs, in total, an increase of 75% since FY 2001.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act, these historic levels of support are combined with an unprecedented commitment to achieving high standards and accountability to ensure that America's schools are producing real results for every child in America. And the new law has already begun to make a difference for students, teachers and administrators across the United States.

* President Bush announced a growth and jobs plan to strengthen the American economy, and called on Congress to act swiftly to pass it.
* The President’s economic agenda has three main goals:
*
o Encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery.
o Promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation.
o Deliver critical help to unemployed citizens.

* The President’s new proposal would:
*
o Speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of the recovery and job creation.
o Encourage job-creating investment in America’s businesses by ending the double taxation of dividends and giving small businesses incentives to grow.
o Provide help for unemployed Americans, including extending unemployment benefits and creating new re-employment accounts to help displaced workers get back on the job.

* Who benefits under the President’s plan?
*
o Everyone who pays taxes—especially middle-income Americans — as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately. Middle-income families will receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket.
o Everyone who invests in the stock market and receives dividend income—especially seniors will benefit from elimination of the double taxation on dividends. About half of all dividend income goes to America’s seniors, who often rely on those checks for a steady source of retirement income.
o Every small business owner who purchases equipment to grow and expand will get assistance through an increase in the expensing limits from $25,000 to $75,000.
o Every worker who has lost his or her job and qualifies for unemployment benefits will get more help, and many will qualify for new, more flexible Personal Re-employment Accounts, which provide a bonus if they find work quickly.

* Under the President’s proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003.
*
o 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716.
o 34 million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473.
o 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541.
o 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.
o 23 million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042.
o

The President’s Plan is Good for All Americans
o A typical family of four with two earners making a combined $39,000 in income will receive a total of $1,100 in tax relief under the President’s plan.

Good for Job Creation
o According to a projection by the Council of Economic Advisers, the President’s plan will help the economy to create 2.1 million jobs over the next three years.

Strengthening America’s Economy for All Americans

* America has the strongest, most resilient economy in the world, yet this economy is not creating enough jobs. We have made great progress, but there is still more work to do.
* The President today proposed a specific agenda to increase the momentum of our economic recovery. The President’s proposal would:
*

The President’s proposal builds on the success of the 2001 tax cut. As a result of this law, Americans are due to receive additional tax relief in 2004, and again in 2006. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have already enacted these cuts. The President believes the time to deliver this relief is now – when it can do the most good for families, businesses, and the economy – not years from now.

GOP platform:
<snip>


At this point, you are just spamming the thread with things that have nothing to do with the subject, and nothing even to do with our little side-conversation.

Please stop.